States’ human resources are managed by two or more central state agencies. In most states, executive personnel agencies work in collaboration with independent civil service commissions or boards. Such commissions are established by con- stitutional provisions in fifteen states and by statutory provisions in other states.
Although commissioners are normally appointed to five- to ten-year terms by the governor, subject to senate confirmation, their authorities and functions vary. In Georgia, the State Personnel Board provides policy directions for a state merit sys- tem of personnel administration. In Louisiana, the State Civil Service Commis- sion serves as an impartial review board that enacts and adjudicates civil service rules to regulate state personnel activities and hears appeals from state employ- ees. New Jersey’s Civil Service Commission appoints a state personnel director to implement its decisions. And the New York State Civil Service Commission adopts and modifies rules governing a wide range of state civil service matters and han- dles appeals on such matters as examination qualifications and ratings, position classifications, pay grade determination, and disciplinary actions.
Central personnel agencies in the executive branch of state governments also vary in their legal basis, structure, method of appointing agency directors, and reporting procedures. Eleven states established their personnel agencies based on constitutional provisions; most of the other states established such agencies through statutory provisions. Pennsylvania’s agency was created by an executive
STATE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEMS 77
Condrey.c04 10/20/04 11:48 AM Page 77
order. However, all states but one (Texas) maintain a central personnel agency.
Some states, like California, have two primary personnel agencies. Half of the states maintain a separate, independent personnel agency, while the other half have their personnel unit within a larger umbrella agency. Personnel agency di- rectors are appointed by the governor in twenty-four states, by a personnel board in five states, and by a department head in fifteen states. Top personnel ex- ecutives in the rest of the states are appointed by some other executive, such as the auditor, secretary of administration and finance, or management or budget director.
Many states have restructured their personnel agencies over the years. In 2003, for example, Iowa’s Department of Personnel was merged into the De- partment of Administrative Services along with General Services, Information Technology, and Accounting. A unit called Human Resource Enterprise within the department is now responsible for personnel management. Wisconsin’s for- mer Department of Employment Relations was replaced in 2003 by the new Of- fice of State Employment Relations as a result of the governor’s effort to streamline state government. Table 4.1 shows the many names currently used by central personnel agencies, and these differences in nomenclature appear to reflect organizational variations as well. No two state personnel agency struc- tures are alike. Although a majority of states have kept the same personnel agency names over the years, several states have recently changed their per- sonnel agency name, some by replacing the term personnelwith human re- sources. Until 1990, for example, only three states used the term human resources.By 1995, six states had adopted it; by 2003, a dozen states were using the term human resourcesfor their personnel agencies. Perhaps the new label reflects more employee-focused functions of these agencies.
78 HANDBOOK OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT
Table 4.1. State Personnel Agencies.
State Personnel Agency
Alabama State Personnel Department Alaska Division of Personnel Arizona Human Resources Division Arkansas Office of Personnel Management
California State Personnel Board; Department of Personnel Administration Colorado Department of Personnel
Connecticut Department of Administrative Services Delaware State Personnel Office
Florida Human Resource Management
Georgia State Merit System
Hawaii Department of Human Resource Development
Idaho Division of Human Resources
Condrey.c04 10/20/04 11:48 AM Page 78
STATE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEMS 79
Table 4.1. State Personnel Agencies, Cont’d.
State Personnel Agency
Illinois Bureau of Personnel Indiana State Personnel Department
Iowa Department of Administrative Services Kansas Division of Personnel Services Kentucky Personnel Cabinet
Louisiana Department of State Civil Service
Maine Bureau of Human Resources
Maryland Office of Personnel Services and Benefits Massachusetts Human Resources Division
Michigan Department of Civil Service Minnesota Department of Employee Relations Mississippi State Personnel Board
Missouri Division of Personnel Montana State Personnel Division Nebraska State Personnel Division Nevada Department of Personnel New Hampshire Division of Personnel New Jersey Department of Personnel New Mexico State Personnel Office New York Department of Civil Service North Carolina Office of State Personnel North Dakota Central Personnel Division
Ohio Division of Human Resources
Oklahoma Office of Personnel Management Oregon Human Resource Services Division Pennsylvania Office of Human Resources Rhode Island Office of Personnel Administration South Carolina Office of Human Resources South Dakota Bureau of Personnel Tennessee Department of Personnel
Texas (No central agency)
Utah Department of Human Resource Management Vermont Department of Personnel
Virginia Department of Human Resource Management Washington Department of Personnel
West Virginia Division of Personnel
Wisconsin Office of State Employee Relations Wyoming Human Resources Division
Sources:National Association of State Personnel Executives, 2003; Chi, 2004.
Condrey.c04 10/20/04 11:48 AM Page 79
Despite various agency names, the major functions of state personnel ad- ministration are very much the same from state to state. These functions include merit testing, employee qualifications, human resource management informa- tion systems, classification, position allocation, compensation, recruitment, se- lection, performance systems, position audits, promotion, employee assistance and counseling, training, employee health and welfare programs, affirmative ac- tion, labor and employee relations, collective bargaining, grievances and ap- peals, alternative dispute resolution, retirement, incentive and productivity programs, workers’ compensation, drug testing, and budget recommendations to the legislature.
Today, fewer state personnel executives are appointed by or report to the gov- ernor than in the past. Heads of state personnel agencies in twenty-six states are currently governor-appointed, compared to thirty-three in 1986. Thirty-nine direc- tors reported directly to the governor two decades ago, and that number decreased to twenty-five in 1996. Meanwhile, the number of personnel executives appointed by an umbrella agency head or a personnel board has increased. The implication is that governors tend to have less direct control over state personnel administra- tion than in the past, and therefore it has become more complicated for personnel agency directors to remedy weaknesses in civil service systems unless they have support from the upper-level department heads to whom they report. Changing the way state personnel administrative agencies work is also complicated. In a ma- jority of states, personnel administration cannot be changed by executive actions alone. Because statutes are the legal basis of personnel agencies in most states, legislative commitment and support are necessary for agency reform.
In addition, it is important to note that although central personnel agencies perform the largest role in personnel management, other agencies also have sig- nificant duties involving the state workforce. In Arizona, for example, although the majority of agencies are subject to the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Administration’s Human Resources System, there are twenty-three agencies that are not included in this system. These twenty-three agencies have been in- formally grouped into eleven separate human resource systems. Each of these systems develops its own employment, compensation, attendance, leave, and employee relations policies and procedures. In California, the personnel man- agement bureaucracy consists of not only the State Personnel Board and the De- partment of Personnel Administration but also nine other agencies: the Public Employment Relations Board (union and labor practice), Department of Fair Em- ployment and Housing (discrimination practices), Office of Administrative Law (personnel rules), Department of General Services (contracts for personnel ser- vices), Department of Finance (personnel budget), State Compensation Insur- ance Fund (employee insurance benefits), Public Employees’ Retirement System (health benefit plans), State Board of Control (work assignments), and State Con- troller (payroll and personnel information system).
80 HANDBOOK OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT Condrey.c04 10/20/04 11:48 AM Page 80
Finally, the debate over centralization and decentralization in state person- nel administration continues. Nearly every state has decentralized at least some of its central personnel functions. But the real debate is not around the ques- tion of whether decentralization in general is desirable or not or whether a spe- cific state should have a more decentralized personnel system. Rather, the debate appears to be around questions such as, How extensive should decen- tralization be? What elements of the civil service system should be consistent across state agencies? What issues should be up to individual line agencies to determine? What should the role of the central personnel agency be in a de- centralized system? In several states, the central agency plays a facilitator’s role, consulting with agencies, assisting them in developing agency policies and pro- grams, providing training and technical assistance, and performing a statewide oversight function.